Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28873160›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2017

Effect of Physician Notification Regarding Nonadherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening on Patient Participation in Fecal Immunochemical Test Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Cédric Rat, Corinne Pogu, Delphine Le Donné, Chloé Latour, Gaelle Bianco, France Nanin, Anne Cowppli-Bony, Aurélie Gaultier, Jean-Michel Nguyen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02515344 (Impact of the Distribution to Attending Physicians of a Nominative List of Their Patients Not Participating in the Organised Screening of Colorectal Cancer), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02515344 nacompletednot on this map

Impact of the Distribution to Attending Physicians of a Nominative List of Their Patients Not Participating in the Organised Screening of Colorectal Cancer: Randomised Study Measuring the Impact on Participation

TypeinterventionalSponsorNantes University HospitalRan2015 to 2016Enrolled48,649ConditionsColorectal CancerArmsProviding a list of patients not compliant with CRC sreening, Providing general information about CRC sreening
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. High Rate of Inappropriate Fecal Immunochemical Testing at a Large Veterans Affairs Health Care System.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. What Multilevel Interventions Do We Need to Increase the Colorectal Cancer Screening Rate to 80%?Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Cédric RatDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Nantes, France.
Corinne PoguAssociation in charge of colorectal cancer screening program, CAPSANTE 44, Nantes, France.
Delphine Le DonnéDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Nantes, France.
Chloé LatourDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Nantes, France.
Gaelle BiancoAssociation in charge of colorectal cancer screening program, AUDACE, La Roche sur Yon, France.
France NaninFrench Health Insurance System, Division of Nantes, Nantes, France.
Anne Cowppli-BonyCancer registry for Loire-Atlantique and Vendée geographic areas, Nantes, France.
Aurélie GaultierDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Jean-Michel NguyenFrench National Institute of Health and Medical Research, INSERM U1232 - Team 2, Nantes, France.
Inserm · FRIMT Atlantique · FRNantes Université · FRRoche (France) · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Increasing participation in fecal screening tests is a major challenge in countries that have implemented colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. Objective: To determine whether providing general practitioners (GPs) a list of patients who are nonadherent to CRC screening enhances patient participation in fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Design, Setting, and Participants: A 3-group, cluster-randomized study was conducted from July 14, 2015, to July 14, 2016, on the west coast of France, with GPs in 801 practices participating and involving adult patients (50-74 years) who were at average risk of CRC and not up-to-date with CRC screening. The final follow-up date was July 14, 2016. Interventions: General practitioners were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 496 received a list of patients who had not undergone CRC screening (patient-specific reminders group, 10 476 patients), 495 received a letter describing region-specific CRC screening adherence rates (generic reminders group, 10 606 patients), and 455 did not receive any reminders (usual care group, 10 147 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was patient participation in CRC screening 1 year after the intervention. Results: Among 1482 randomized GPs (mean age, 53.4 years; 576 women [38.9%]), 1446 participated; of the 33 044 patients of these GPs (mean age, 59.7 years; 17 949 women [54.3%]), follow-up at 1 year was available for 31 229 (94.5%). At 1 year, 24.8% (95% CI, 23.4%-26.2%) of patients in the specific reminders group, 21.7% (95% CI, 20.5%-22.8%) in the generic reminders group, and 20.6% (95% CI, 19.3%-21.8%) in the usual care group participated in the FIT screening. The between-group differences were 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3%-5.0%) for the patient-specific reminders group vs the generic reminders group, 4.2% (95% CI, 2.3%-6.2%) for the patient-specific reminders group vs the usual care group, and 1.1% (95% CI, -0.6% to 2.8%) for generic reminders group vs the usual care group. Conclusions and Relevance: Providing French GPs caring for adults at average risk of CRC with a list of their patients who were not up-to-date with their CRC screening resulted in a small but significant increase in patient participation in FIT screening at 1 year compared with patients who received usual care. Providing GPs with generic reminders about regional rates of CRC screening did not increase screening rates compared with usual care. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02515344.

Indexed as

General PractitionersOccult BloodPatient ComplianceColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFranceHumansMaleMiddle AgedSocial Class

Identifiers

PMID28873160
PMCPMC5817465
OpenAlexW2752475991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.